Introduction: Confessions of a UX Masochist
We often learn what not to do by experiencing terrible design firsthand. That's why I spent an entire day deliberately using some of the internet's most poorly designed websites.
I subjected myself to broken navigation, cluttered layouts, and accessibility nightmares that made me question my career choices.
Bad UX isn't just annoying—it's a business killer. Baymard Institute research shows companies lose approximately 35% of potential revenue due to poor user experience. Even more striking, 88% of users won't return after a bad experience.
This article documents the shocking failures I encountered and what designers and business owners can learn from them.
TLDR: Key Takeaways
- 88% of users abandon sites permanently after poor UX experiences
- Top failures: visual clutter, broken navigation (15+ clicks), and mobile designs requiring constant zooming
- Users form quality judgments in just 50 milliseconds, making first impressions critical
- Fixing these design failures delivers $100 ROI for every $1 invested in UX
The Experiment: My Day with Bad UX Websites
How I Selected the Worst Offenders
I chose websites based on four criteria: documented user complaints on forums like Reddit, visibly outdated design (think 2005 aesthetics), navigation structures that made simple tasks impossible, and serious accessibility violations.
These weren't just mildly annoying sites—they were the worst of the worst.
The test subjects included:
- E-commerce sites with 20+ second load times
- Government portals with buried information
- Corporate pages featuring auto-playing videos
- Personal blogs with unreadable color schemes
Setting Up the Test Parameters
For each site, I set specific tasks: finding contact information, completing a purchase, filling out forms, and locating specific content.
I tracked time spent, clicks required, errors encountered, and my subjective frustration level on a 1-10 scale.
To establish a baseline, I set reasonable expectations:
Acceptable UX benchmarks:
- Finding contact info: <30 seconds, <3 clicks
- Completing a purchase: <2 minutes, <8 clicks
- Locating specific content: <45 seconds, <5 clicks
Anything beyond these thresholds indicated serious UX problems.
My Mental State Going In (vs. Coming Out)
I started with curiosity about what makes bad UX universally frustrating. I expected annoyance but approached it as a learning opportunity.
Four hours in, I developed real eye strain from poor contrast ratios. By hour six, I felt tension in my shoulders from hunching over my phone trying to tap microscopic buttons.
The experience gave me profound appreciation for well-designed websites—something we take for granted until it's absent.
The Most Shocking Design Failures I Encountered
The Cluttered Chaos: When Everything Screams for Attention
The worst offender featured 14 different call-to-action buttons above the fold, three auto-playing videos, two pop-ups within 5 seconds, and a rotating banner with seven different messages. My eyes literally didn't know where to look first.
This violates the fundamental principle of visual hierarchy. Research confirms that cluttered websites significantly degrade search performance, with users showing a larger "spread of attention" indicating they struggle to find focus.
When everything demands attention, nothing receives it.
Key problems with cluttered design:
- No clear entry point for the eye to begin scanning
- Competing CTAs create decision paralysis
- Important information gets lost in visual noise
- Users abandon rather than sort through chaos
The Navigation Nightmare: Lost in a Digital Maze
One corporate website required 17 clicks to find their pricing page. The main menu contained 9 top-level items, each with 6-12 sub-items, organized with inconsistent logic. Half the links led to dead ends or pages that simply repeated the menu.
I spent 12 minutes trying to find basic contact information, eventually discovering it buried in the footer under "Corporate Resources" rather than the obvious "Contact" section, which only offered a chatbot.
Navigation failures included:
- Inconsistent labeling (same content called different names in different places)
- Hidden mega-menus that appeared unpredictably
- Broken breadcrumb trails
- No search function to bypass the maze
The Mobile Disaster: Desktop Design Crammed into a Phone
Multiple sites were completely unusable on mobile. One required constant horizontal scrolling to read single sentences.
Buttons were so small I needed three attempts to tap the right one. Text sizes ranged from microscopic to inexplicably huge within the same paragraph.
This isn't acceptable in 2025. Mobile devices now account for 51.4% of global web traffic, making mobile-first design mandatory, not optional. Mobile users are five times more likely to abandon tasks on non-optimized sites.
Common mobile failures:
- Fixed-width layouts requiring constant zooming
- Touch targets smaller than the recommended 44x44 pixels
- Forms requiring desktop-style input
- Pop-ups covering entire mobile screens with invisible close buttons
The Accessibility Fail: Excluding Users by Design
I tested accessibility using keyboard navigation and screen reader software. The results were shocking: 80% of sites I tested were completely unusable without a mouse.
Tab order jumped randomly around pages. Images lacked alt text. Color contrast ratios failed WCAG 2.2 standards dramatically.
One site used light gray text (#CCCCCC) on white backgrounds—unreadable for anyone, impossible for users with visual impairments. A different site featured critical information conveyed only through color coding, excluding colorblind users entirely.
Accessibility isn't just compliance—it's good business. Features designed for accessibility (clear labels, logical structure, keyboard navigation) improve usability for everyone.
The Performance Catastrophe: When Waiting Becomes Unbearable
I encountered load times exceeding 30 seconds. One e-commerce site loaded a 15MB hero image uncompressed. A separate site ran 47 different tracking scripts before displaying content. The experience felt like using dial-up internet in 2025.
40% of users abandon websites that take more than 3 seconds to load. Google recommends Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) of 2.5 seconds or less for good user experience. These sites weren't even close.
Performance killers included:
- Unoptimized images (multi-megabyte files)
- Render-blocking JavaScript
- Excessive third-party scripts
- No caching strategy
The Trust Destroyer: Sketchy Design That Screams "Scam"
Several sites looked so unprofessional I questioned their legitimacy. One featured a broken SSL certificate warning. Others used 12 different fonts, including Comic Sans for body text. Pixelated stock photos appeared poorly cropped throughout.
Approximately 75% of users judge company credibility based on website design. These sites destroyed trust before users could even evaluate their actual offerings. Suspicious pop-ups, aggressive upsells, and poor copywriting riddled with errors completed the picture.
The Real Cost of Bad UX: Beyond Frustration
The business impact of poor UX extends far beyond user annoyance. Companies lose approximately 35% of potential revenue due to bad user experience, while good UX design can increase conversion rates by up to 400%.
The ripple effect amplifies the damage. 13% of customers with bad experiences tell at least 15 people, spreading negative word-of-mouth that damages brand reputation.
Even worse, 91% of unsatisfied users simply leave without complaining, creating "silent churn" that's difficult to track and address.
The financial impact includes:
- Decreased conversion rates (lost immediate revenue)
- Increased customer acquisition costs (replacing churned users)
- Damaged reputation (negative reviews and lost referrals)
- Reduced customer lifetime value (no repeat purchases)
These impacts hit e-commerce particularly hard:
- 69.8% of shopping carts are abandoned, often due to UX friction
- The average large site can boost conversions by 35.26% through checkout redesign alone
What These Failures Teach Us About Good UX
Simplicity Wins: Less Is Always More
The best websites prioritize clarity over cleverness. They feature focused messaging, generous white space, and single clear calls-to-action that guide users toward specific goals.
Good design removes obstacles rather than adding features—each element either helps users accomplish their goals or creates friction. When sites like Arngren.net clutter every pixel with competing elements, they force users to work harder than necessary.
Users Don't Read, They Scan
Eye-tracking research confirms users scan web content in an F-shaped pattern: two horizontal stripes followed by a vertical stripe. They don't read thoroughly—they scan to be efficient, choosing the path of minimum effort.
To support scanning behavior:
- Place critical information in the first two paragraphs
- Use information-carrying subheadings (not generic ones)
- Employ bullet points for lists
- Bold key phrases strategically
- Break up text with visual elements every 200-300 words
Consistency Creates Confidence
Consistent design patterns reduce cognitive load by allowing users to apply existing mental models. When navigation, buttons, and interactions behave predictably, users feel confident and complete tasks faster.
Inconsistency forces users to relearn interfaces repeatedly, increasing mental effort and error rates. Predictable experiences create psychological comfort that keeps users engaged.
Mobile-First Is Non-Negotiable
With mobile holding 51.4% of worldwide market share, designing for mobile first isn't optional. This approach ensures core functionality works on the most constrained screens, then enhances for larger displays.
Key mobile-first principles:
- Touch-friendly interfaces (minimum 44x44 pixel tap targets)
- Simplified navigation for smaller screens
- Responsive layouts that adapt fluidly
- Performance optimization for variable connections
Accessibility Benefits Everyone
Accessible design features improve usability for everyone. Clear labels help all users find information quickly. Logical structure aids navigation for everyone. Keyboard navigation benefits power users, not just those with disabilities.
Following WCAG 2.2 guidelines often makes web content more usable generally, while also meeting legal requirements for ADA compliance.
How to Avoid These UX Disasters in Your Own Projects
Avoiding UX disasters requires a disciplined, user-centered approach from project kickoff through launch.
Ground your design in real user research:
- Conduct interviews, surveys, and usability tests before designing anything
- Test with actual users, not assumptions—five participants uncover 80% of usability problems
- Use qualitative research to understand the "why" behind user behavior
Follow proven UX patterns:
- Implement clear navigation hierarchies users can scan quickly
- Build consistent design systems that reduce cognitive load
- Use mobile-responsive layouts that adapt to any screen size
- Stick with conventions users already understand rather than reinventing standard patterns
Test continuously throughout development:
- Use A/B testing, heatmaps, and session recordings to spot friction points
- Run tests for 1-2 weeks minimum to account for behavioral fluctuations
- For quantitative validation, test with 40+ participants for statistically reliable results
When to Bring in UX Experts
Warning signs indicate you need professional help:
- Conversion rates declining month over month
- Bounce rates consistently above 70%
- Negative user feedback appearing in reviews or support tickets
- Design that hasn't been updated in 3+ years
When these signals appear, specialized agencies bring fresh perspective, proven methodologies, and efficient execution. Climate tech and deep tech companies face a unique challenge: translating complex innovations into experiences users actually understand.
For every $1 invested in UX, businesses realize a return of $100—making professional expertise a strategic investment, not just a cost.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes a website's UX "bad"?
Bad UX includes confusing navigation, slow load times (over 3 seconds), cluttered layouts, and missing accessibility features. These issues prevent users from completing tasks efficiently and finding information quickly.
How quickly do users judge a website's quality?
Users form stable judgments about visual appeal in just 50 milliseconds. This split-second assessment determines whether they'll engage further or leave immediately, making strong first impressions critical.
Can bad UX actually hurt my business financially?
Companies lose approximately 35% of potential revenue due to poor UX. Bad experiences decrease conversions, increase bounce rates, and damage brand reputation.
What's the difference between UX and UI design?
UX focuses on the overall user journey and functionality, while UI handles visual elements and interactive components. Both disciplines work together to create effective digital experiences.
How often should I update my website's UX?
Conduct quarterly reviews of analytics to identify user drop-off points. Implement updates whenever data shows declining performance. Continuously monitor through user feedback, behavior tracking, and periodic usability testing to catch issues early.
Is it worth hiring a UX agency or should I DIY?
DIY works for simple projects with limited budgets. Professional agencies bring specialized expertise, proven methodologies, and faster execution. Research shows good UX delivers 9,900% ROI, often justifying the investment for growth-focused businesses.
